Mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intention is established from the outset, as per Section 420 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)

The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R. No. 26 of 2020, dated 26.02.2020, registered at Police Station Kihar, Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and consequential proceedings arising out of the F.I.R.

2. Briefly stated, the brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that informant/respondent No. 4 made a complaint to the police, asserting that he was executing the work of construction of the Bhandal Panoga Bridge over the river Siul. He entered into an agreement with the present petitioners for the fabrication, launching, erection and transportation of steel up to the site for Rs.64,00,000. He transferred Rs.15 lakhs to the petitioners. The petitioners assured the informant that they would complete the work within 135 days. However, the petitioners did not pick up the phone after receiving the money. The department imposed a penalty of Rs.14,00,000 and withheld the money due to the informant. The informant made a complaint to the police station, Kihar on 23.01.2020. The petitioners visited the police station in Kihar and admitted their fault. They agreed to bring the fabricated steel worth Rs.20 lakhs within 20 days. They also agreed to compensate the informant for his financial loss. The petitioners did not honour their promise and did not pick up the phone. They caused a loss of Rs.50,00,000 to the informant. The Police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation.

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the F.I.R., The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the F.I.R. and consequential proceedings arising out of it. It was asserted that F.I.R. and criminal proceedings arising out of it amount to an abuse of the process of the law. The petitioners repeatedly requested the informant to complete the civil work, but he failed to do so. The petitioners visited the site repeatedly and shifted the machinery with Rs.50 lakhs to Salooni. They could not execute the work because the site was not ready as per the agreed terms and conditions. The parties entered into an agreement on 23^rd January 2020, and the informant agreed to complete the civil work. The dispute between the parties is purely civil. It is related to the specific performance of the agreement executed between the parties. There was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners. They could not execute the work because the informant failed to complete the civil work. The petitioners had filed CrMMO number 1257/2022, which was dismissed for non- prosecution on 28^th December 2023. The dismissal of the earlier petition does not have any effect on the present petition. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the F.I.R. and consequential proceedings arising out of the same be quashed.

4. The petition is opposed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 by filing a reply making a preliminary submission regarding the lack of maintainability. The contents of the petition were denied on merits; however, it was admitted that an F.I.R. was registered against the petitioners. It was asserted that the petitioners failed to fulfil their part of the contract and cheated the informant. The police conducted an investigation and found sufficient reasons to file the chargesheet against the petitioner. The matter was listed before the Court on 6^th July 2024 for the service of the petitioners. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

5. A rejoinder denying the contents of the reply and affirming those of the petition was filed.

6. I have heard M/s R.L. Chaudhary and H.R. Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State.

7. Mr R.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the dispute between the parties is civil and relates to the spe